Printing Currency

If liquidity is the problem, then why not take the 787,000,000,000.00 and print the money for each citizen?

That would be roughly 320,000,000 give or take considering some people cannot be found, some are invested in grey market activities, and some are in prison as convicted felons.

So that would leave roughly $2,400 for all those people.

If cash flow is the problem, and a lack of printed paper money available to meet the created wealth via production, then giving all citizens $2,400 should solve the problem.

For some it would be 2 52" Vizo LCD flat panel tvs. For others it would be the tax/tag/title on a new GM car. For others it would be nearly two months mortgage for a median house. For even others it would be new computers, clothes, food, etc.

If the real problem is liquidity of paper currency and availiblility of paper currency, then a government "stimulus" of pork pet projects isn't really needed.

Somehow I doubt that it would work. We gave taxpayers what? $1000 in rebated taxes? And it did almost nothing. As a matter of fact it did make matters worse. Because upon being given a rebate by the government, many people assumed correctly that if the government was giving back tax money, it was because the economy was in trouble.

Most people simply used the money to buy down debt.

This is just stupid.

Leia Mais…

If the economy is really bad?

I always wondered why the difference for the past couple of years the answer to the polling questions as to your own personal economic reality, and your perception of your neighbor's economic reality. It gets brought up cyclically in the media. I have no idea what college or group funds the poll, or even how to find the latest one. But they have been asking it for decades.

That said, the last time I heard about it was during the election. In short when asked how their own personal economy was going 90% said they were fine. When asked how they thought their neighbors were doing, the same respondents declared that 90% of their neighbors are having problems.

Think about it. 90% of people think that they are doing fine- but- 90% of their neighbors are doing badly. Which leads to an interesting conclusion. The current economic crisis may indeed be a media driven perception of events. In my own circle of people, those who watch MSNBC or CNN have been bemoaning the state of the economy for almost five years. Declaring how bad it is for every person, without ever taking into account that they themselves and everyone they know is neither better off or worse off in any substantial measure. I personally think that this perception has indeed become reality. And I have seen it first hand and watched the results.

Now mind you, in my particular circumstance it has been of some benefit because were builders and subcontractors not running scared, I would have been unable to rebuild my house as quickly as I did, or even at the cost I eventually had to spend through the process. People are simply holding off buying or purchasing anything or entering into any risk venture. I think it is mostly due to media.

Compared with the Carter years, the events of today don't even come close. You aren't seeing unionized industries collapsing wholesale. Partly because the union collapse of Carter's watch were ultimately permanent. Shipping, transport, automobiles, shipbuilding, steel, and unionized skilled trades all got swamped by better and generally more efficient free labor models. So today, we aren't seeing whole industries collapse both in terms of job loss and the permanent disappearance of jobs. Those loses happened 20 years ago. We are not seeing credit markets for even people with good credit collapse as they did back then either. If you have a credit card with a 20% interest rate attached to it currently, it isn't because that is the lowest rate as it was during Carter. Rather, if you have a 20% interest rate today, it is because you are incompetent with money.

People with even average scores can get, and are getting interest rates on 30 year fixed conforming loans of under 6% right now. Back during Carter, people with 760-840 credit scores were getting 13% interest rate loans only after paying 20% down and 3 to 5 points for 30 year conforming mortgages. If you think gas and food are expensive now, you might want to reconsider. Using adjusted Dollars to compare today to then, your loaf of bread cost you $6 then compared to $3 tops now. Your gas cost you $4 then compared to $2.50 now.

The thing is it is perception that statistics like "largest job number loss in 18 years" sounds scary. But it is scary only if you don't understand that in the past 25 years the size of the employment job market has skyrocketed. In percentage points of actual loss it doesn't even compare. Compare today's 6% unemployment rate to the double digit rates of the Carter years. Then take it a step further and consider that most economists historically viewed a rate of 5% as being essentially the closest our economy could come to "FULL EMPLOYMENT". Think about that. We are historically just one percentage point away from full employment nirvana, yet you have elected officials stating that we are just a step away from a Depression?

You mean the Depression where we had 15% and over average unemployment? We are not even in the same ballpark right now. Do many people remember how happy we were with interest rates at 10% and 8% unemployment under Reagan?

It was recalled as a boom time for the entire economy. Remember the 1980's? The time when all levels of the economy miraculously improved? Well, it wasn't miraculous all we did was cut taxes. Yet, that level attained by that improvement doesn't even begin to approach today's numbers of Prime 3.25% and unemployment of 6.1%. Under Carter we had a prime of 21.5% and 11.3% unemployment.

Did we need a bailout? No we didn't. Did we loan some industries money? Yes- and made a profit for the taxpayer when they were paid off. Did we spend billions in infrastructure and pork programs? No- we solved the crisis by dropping the marginal tax rates to a more sane level. How did companies respond? They cut their staffs, retooled production, began investing in technology, and spun off dozens of inhouse entities to become independent corporations. Small business also got lean and mean, dumped staff and improved their products and services- not to mention improving productivity.

So really, if you believe their is an economic crisis, you have probably fallen into a media perception trap. You probably are a person who has made some bad economic choices that influence how you see the overall economy. You probably can't get a home or auto loan due to past credit issues. Your employment skill set is probably antiquated or specialized to contracting industries. You probably don't remember the Carter Administration, Ford's WIN program, or the Oil Embargoes on a personal level, resultantly leaving you without reference to evaluate current claims that we are one step away from a Depression. In short, your personal reality is that you represent the 10% of Americans who, for whatever reason, are simply not successful compared to everyone else.

Therefore you see reporting on how bad everything is- and identify with it personally because it is what you are experiencing. The reality is that real estate in isolated markets, California, Washington, New York, etc. were over valued and had minor corrections of 10% average which left less capable people upside down in short term mortgages. You had a federal policy of risky loans dropped into the mix, as well as a war, and a retraction in technology services all combining to create a situation where reasonable people became cautious. And by being cautious, people and companies pay less, look at budgets more closely, and keep liquid assets consolidated and available.

What this means to those who live beyond their means, and companies who operate with lose fiscal control is the economy that enables such activity has ceased. People living within their means are not effected right now and are even benefitting from lower costs towards purchases and credit.

Unfortunately we are all getting a nice $1,000,000,000,000.00 debt increase intended to insulate those among us who tend not to live with a personal budget & those companies who operated with lose fiscal controls.

If we are on the verge of a Depression, then what we experienced under Carter was a full blown Depression. And that would make the Depression of the 1930's totally unimaginable by anyone in terms of actual economic impacts.

McCain was right. The economy is sound and is operating normally. And the expectation that unless something was done before Obama took office, the Depression was going to hit by January has proven ultimately false. There isn't a crisis. There never was one. However, we have now sown the seed that will bare fruit during our children's lives. For ever dollar spent by the government, the economy gets back a 60 cent return. For every dollar the government borrows it costs the tax payer and addition 50 cents. So the real costs associated with the $700 billion of Bush and $800 billion of Obama are ultimately going to clock in at around $3 Trillion in true costs.

Our children should expect a real Depression in the next 30 years.

I'd pay off your credit cards and pay off your mortgage if I were you.

Leia Mais…

Pointing out the Obvious

Aside from the fact that they let the unions strong arm them for decades- especially the 1970's and 1980's, or even the fact that they mothballed production capacities in favor of spinning off internal supply chains into spun off barely independent companies, or using gimmick financing to enable them to charge inflated prices to their consumers < 72 month auto loans? give me a break>- the real problem is they build crap.

Seriously- they build crap. Their engines have barely developed in 30 years. Ford, aside from its Volvo and Jaguar acquired engines- date from the early 1980's. Aside from cosmetic changes to the front ends and roof lines none of the trucks or cars have substantially improved in terms of form & function. In a very real sense the Detroit of today is little different from the Detroit of the 1950's when it was taking pre-war chassis and engines and slapping fins and chrome on every possible surface.

Have there been some high spots? Sure cars like the Riviera, Thunderbird, and 300M were great. They also were essentially custom built, used as test beds for other simpler cars- and the abandoned. GM's Quad 4 engine and the Oldsmobile Aurora were a world class combination of form and function. Yet you can't buy an Olds anymore because GM wanted to streamline for marketing purposes. And the union agreed because in exchange for shutting down assembly plants like Fisher, the union got huge severance packages and garuntees for the now idled workers. Ford shut down its assembly plant in Atlanta and GM shut down its plant in Doraville. Never mind the former was home to the Taurus chassis lines and the later was home to the Uplander - a car that created the crossover class.

Even when they got things right as is the case with projects like the Prowler or GT40, the idiotic moves they made in terms of hamstringing their production, logistics, and supply always reflected an impact on the workers and marketing. Chrysler's launching of the cab forward Sebring line created pretty impressive numbers in terms of sales- to a point that Daimler Benz even bought them. Yet the reality is that even Daimler couldn't manage to run Chrysler at a profit. Whether or not the institutional legacy contributed to Chrysler's eventual decline is debatable.

The real point is that in terms of technology, innovation, and actual product availability to the consumer the Detroit companies out right fail in comparison to other makes. In short the offerings from Detroit fail in terms of chassis design one of the least modified or improved components in their inventory. Their engines are overweight, made in a manner little improved in the last 30 years, and are modern only insofar as the top end mechanical systems have included multiple cams and electronic engine management systems. While fit and finish have improved markedly, the durability of appearance items is pathetic. The paint is barely resistant to scratching of its clear coat. Plastic bumpers and front facia still tend to shed paint and spider. Interior grades of cloths and fabrics are almost universally inferior to those on even the cheapest imported cars. The tactile surfaces show wear in a matter of months, and often are made of inferior plastics that quickly shed their painted on finishes.

The cars are lacking in design based on reality. The cars look like they were cobbled together from parts bins. The era of great designers that ended with the 1970's gas crisis has only gotten worse. American cars are either small econo-boxes or leviathans on the order slab sided Hummers. The sense of style is very limited in terms of addressing the needs of consumers in terms of utility and mechanical efficiency. It is as if Detroit simply cant suffer any eye pleasing form factor or even be bothered with designing a car based on optimizing performance effiencies and user utility.

GM, Ford, and Chrysler may be selling gangbusters in Asia right now. The thing is, their cars sell there only because their vehicles are cheaper than the preferred cars in the market. In China, the number one car is Volkswagen. And it increases its share every year. GM and Ford may crow about how successful they are over there, but the reality is that their cars are bottom feeders. VW sells multiple brands that most of you wouldn't recognize, but the thing is VW will wind up selling a million cars this year. That is around 18-20% of the entire market. GM has around 15%, Ford somewhere similar. Chrysler even less. The Chinese buy VW or Toyota products when they can afford it. They still buy their state owned automobiles most. And what is further telling that in terms of GM's presence in China, it is a subsidiary of SAIC one of China's largest automotive groups. GM may have "sold" 1 million cars in China this year- but they weren't really GM cars for the most part. The reality is that Detroit is basically the bottom feeder in the Chinese market. They plan on selling most of their cars outside of the United States in the next decade. It seems their business model is to try and sell their cars in places where consumers don't realize the cars are crap.

Even in motorsport, Detroit can't compete. Give Toyota a few more years and NASCAR fans won't be watching Detroit plated cars. Aside from the Corvettes competing at LeMans every year and usually taking their class, Detroit is not a factor in racing. To those of you saying "So What?" I point you to Porsche AG. Porsche races in dozens of classes, wins in dozens of the harshest racing venues of the world and as a result is the most profitable automaker in the world because it takes racing technology, perfects it on the tracks of the world, and places them into its consumer cars.

What about the other major car manufacturers? Honda is all over motorsport. The same can be said for Volkswagen, FIAT, Renault, Nissan, and Toyota. One of the best indicators of healthy consumer car sales is whether or not a manufacturer competes in Formula One racing. Toyota, FIAT, BMW, and Renault do- and all of them are doing far better than their Detroit rivals. When it comes to technology development the only place Detroit can be competitive is NASCAR- and lets face it NASCAR is about as low tech as racing can get.

For whatever reason, Detroit offers inferior products. And what is worse is that the cars start out overpriced and lose their value rapidly once you buy it. Design sense and esthetics are not world class. They may be better built compared to Detroit's offering in the last decade, but the reality is that they are often very inferior compared to other automakers. People can blame the unions, or legacy costs, or incompetent management. The real problem is the cars simply suck.

After the fire, I had a brand new Pontiac G6 Coupe. The fit and finish was so bad that there were three separate controls that broke off in my hand. I pushed on a button in one case and it went through the dashboard. Granted it was a rental car but the ergonomics were straight out of the 1980's. Gas milage was hideous. The thing averaged 12 MPG. 12 MPG on a car that was less than 1 month old. The engine bay emitted so much heat that one person who was standing next to the driver side window talking to me actually complained about how much heat was flowing away from the engine compartment. The AC was so feeble that according to the interior cockpit temperature gauge the air temperature in the car only managed to drop 6 degrees after a 30 minute drive.

And that was a new redesigned forward to the future GM offerings that is supposed to take consumers along for the ride.

Now ask yourself if you would buy the following. It is a decades old chassis with minimal modifications. The front end is a plastic cowling with a grill that actually isn't functional and is purely cosmetic. The fit and finish of the interior is so poor that parts break off with little effort. Ergonomics of seating and layout of controls isn't. The AC is so poor it cannot cool a car off in the Summer time- and by cool off I mean get the temperature less than 85 degrees. It gets 12 MPG city and 14 MPG highway. The engine design is so inefficient that the entire engine bay radiates excessive heat.

I don't think you would either.

A very telling thing is that I have a used Porsche. It isn't a very common model. Only 2,200 or so made it into the country the year it was new. As it has sat at the construction site it has often been oogled by the workers. A game has developed between myself and my general contractor. When we see people gawking at it we ask them what year they think the car was made- and this is after one of us tell them that it is a used car. The average guess is 2002 model year. When I tell them it is a 1992 model car you can pretty much knock them over with a feather.

And that is the embodiment of the failings of Detroit.

My car is a decade old and more, yet it is pleasing to the eye, has modern features like anti lock breaks, 16 way power seats, power windows, multiple airbags, gets 20 something MPG, multiple airbags, and enough other stuff to convince the average person that it is a new car.

You put a 1992 model car from Detroit on my construction site and there isn't any question at all that it is a 1992 model car. Detroit hasn't changed that much so I suspect that in a decade people will be able to tell a 202 Model Detroit car is a piece of junk.

My Porsche? I suspect they will be thinking its a 2011 model year car.

Detroit's collapse is inevitable. It isn't the fault of the unions, but it also isn't a wise move to bail them out. Bankruptcy may be the only thing that might save them because it would require the removal of all the unsound business models that Detroit can't seem to overcome.

Leia Mais…